U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Alia Corp.
842 F. Supp. 2d 1243
E.D. Cal.2012Background
- EEOC alleges Alia subjected Derrick Morgan to adverse actions due to disability under the ADA.
- Morgan filed a charge with the EEOC on October 20, 2009; EEOC investigated and notified Alia, which denied discrimination.
- Alia had purchased the Oakhurst McDonald’s in January 2009 and reportedly modified Morgan’s duties and pay after performance issues.
- EEOC issued a Letter of Determination on June 22, 2011 finding reasonable cause; conciliation discussions followed, including a draft proposal.
- During conciliation, Alia’s counsel sought disclosure of Morgan’s disability; a July 7, 2011 conference occurred with offers exchanged and a possible counteroffer.
- On July 11, 2011, EEOC served a Notice of Conciliation Failure; Morgan suit alleging disability-based discrimination was filed September 13, 2011.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conciliation is jurisdictional to sue under the ADA | Alia asserts conciliation is jurisdictional; failure bars subject-matter jurisdiction. | EEOC contends conciliation is a precondition, not jurisdictional; denial goes to claim sufficiency. | Conciliation is not jurisdictional; threshold issue resolved under precondition analysis. |
| What standard governs evaluating the EEOC’s good-faith conciliation | Alia urges a stringent standard (Klingler) to deter deferential treatment. | EEOC advocates a deferential standard (Keco) granting broad discretion to the EEOC. | Court adopts deferential standard; focus is whether the EEOC made an attempt at conciliation. |
| Did the EEOC conciliate in good faith before filing suit | Alia claims EEOC used inflexible positions and failed to disclose Morgan’s disability, ending conciliation prematurely. | EEOC presents evidence that it engaged and attempted to negotiate; cure of stalemate lies with EEOC’s judgment. | Genuine issue of material fact remains; summary judgment denied on good-faith conciliation. |
| Whether the court should require a more definite statement | Alia seeks precise nature and scope of Morgan’s disability and basis of 'disability and/or perceived disability'. | EEOC’s allegations are sufficiently specific at this stage; discovery will fill details. | Motion for a more definite statement denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pierce Packing Co., 669 F.2d 605 (9th Cir. 1982) (conciliation prerequisite but not jurisdictional under Title VII)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (U.S. 2006) (bright-line test for jurisdictional labeling of requirements)
- Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 130 S. Ct. 1237 (U.S. 2010) (four-factor approach to determine if a requirement is jurisdictional)
- Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385 (U.S. 1982) (consolidates understanding of preconditions to suit)
- Klingler Elec. Corp., 636 F.2d 104 (5th Cir. 1981) (standard for evaluating EEOC conciliation deference)
- Keco Industries, Inc., 748 F.2d 1097 (6th Cir. 1984) (deferential standard for EEOC conciliation efforts)
- EEOC v. Bruno’s Restaurant, 13 F.3d 285 (9th Cir. 1993) (EEOC conciliation context and its sufficiency)
- EEOC v. Prudential Federal Sav. & Loan Assoc., 763 F.2d 1166 (10th Cir. 1985) (EEOC conciliation duty respected; stay vs. dismissal considerations)
- EEOC v. California Psychiatric Transitions, Inc., 644 F. Supp. 2d 1249 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (application of deferential standard in Ninth Circuit district courts)